Compare phones
| Global Score | |
| 74.1 | 92.3 |
| Basic Information | |
| Motorola | Samsung |
| -- | Android 11, 10 |
| 2015-09-03 | 2020-08-07 |
| 6.06 x 3.00 x 0.44 inches | 6.59 x 2.90 x 0.28 inches |
| 6.31 ounces | 6.46 ounces |
| Black, Gray and White | Mystic bronze, Mystic gray and Mystic white |
| Plastic | Aluminum |
| Scratch-Resistant Glass | -- |
| -- | $ 603.00 |
| Display / Screen | |
| 5.7 inches | 6.7 inches |
| 2560 x 1440 pixels (Quad HD / 2K) | 2636 x 1080 pixels |
| IPS LCD | Dynamic AMOLED |
| 515 pixels per inch | 425 pixels per inch |
| No touch screen | No touch screen |
| 8.5 | 8.3 |
| Performance | |
| Qualcomm Snapdragon 808 MSM8992 chipset | Qualcomm Snapdragon 865+ SM8250-AB chipset |
| ARM Cortex-A57 and ARM Cortex-A53, 64-bit (Hexa-Core 1800 MHz) processor | Kryo 585, 64-bit, 7 nm (Octa-Core 3100 MHz) processor |
| 3 GB RAM | 8 GB RAM |
| Adreno 418 GPU | Adreno 650 GPU |
| 8.82 | 9.81 |
| Storage | |
| 64 GB internal memory | 256 GB internal memory |
| microSDXC (up to 128 GB) external memory slot | No SD card slot |
| 10.02 | 13.3 |
| Camera | |
| 21.00 MP + 5.00 MP | 12.00 MP + 10.00 MP |
| f/2.00 aperture | f/1.80 aperture |
| 27.00mm focal length | 27.00mm focal length |
| 0.42 inches (1/2.4") sensor | 0.39 inches (1/2.55") sensor |
| 3840 x 2160 (30 fps) (4K) video resolution | 3840 x 2160 (60 fps) (4K) video resolution |
| 1920 x 1080 (60 fps) (Full HD) slow motion video | 1280 x 720 (960 fps) (HD) slow motion video |
| 10.34 | 10.23 |
| Networks | |
| Wi-Fi | Wi-Fi |
| Mobile Hotspot | Mobile Hotspot |
| LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA and HSUPA | 5G, 5G, LTE-A (4G), LTE (4G), HSPA+ (4G), HSDPA and HSUPA |
| Nano SIM | Nano SIM, Dual SIM |
| 6.3 | 10.7 |
| Battery Life | |
| 3000mAh Li - Ion Battery | 3300mAh Li - Polymer Battery |
| Non-Removable Battery | Non-Removable Battery |
| -- | Wireless Charging |
| 4.96 | 5.28 |
| Other Features | |
| Bluetooth 4.1 | Bluetooth 5.0 |
| GPS | GPS |
| NFC | NFC |
| -- | Fingerprint ID Scanner |
| Accelerometer, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor | Accelerometer, Barometer, Compass, Gyroscope, Light Sensor and Proximity Sensor |
Comparison review
Galaxy Z Flip 5G has an overall score of 92.3, which is a lot better than the Moto X Pure Edition (2015)'s 74.1 general score. Galaxy Z Flip 5G's construction is newer and much thinner than the Moto X Pure Edition (2015)'s, although it is also just a bit heavier. Galaxy Z Flip 5G has a greater processing power than Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because it has a higher number of cores and a larger amount of RAM memory.
Moto X Pure Edition (2015) has just a bit better looking screen than Galaxy Z Flip 5G, because although it has a little smaller display, it also counts with a slightly higher 1440 x 2560 pixels resolution and a bit higher number of pixels per inch in the screen. Galaxy Z Flip 5G counts with a lot bigger storage capacity to install applications and games or saving photos and videos than Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because although it has no SD memory card expansion slot, it also counts with 192 GB more internal memory.
The Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5G has just a little bit longer battery performance than Motorola Moto X Pure Edition (2015), because it has a 10 percent greater battery size. Moto X Pure Edition (2015) counts with a bit better camera than Samsung Galaxy Z Flip 5G, because although it has a smaller camera aperture which is not recommended for low light captures and video and worse video frame rate, and they both have the same 3840x2160 video definition, the Moto X Pure Edition (2015) also counts with a larger back-facing camera sensor shooting higher quality videos and photos and a back-facing camera with way more mega pixels.
Disclaimer: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.